Priya Gour
Published on: 16th August, 2022 at 19:59 IST
The Orissa High Court has recently held that an order taking cognizance and issuing summons will be appealable under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Also, the order can be challenged under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
A single bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra opined that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482, which cannot be guided by any statute. By holding so, the High Court has differed with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court recently in Anuj Kumar’s case.
The Case: Smrutikant Rath & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
The Court was deciding whether orders issued under the ST and SC Act are ‘interlocutory orders’ or not. This was because the nature of ‘interlocutory orders’ is that they cannot be appealed under Section 14-A(1) of the Act.
The appellant’s counsel relied on the recent judgement of the Allahabad High Court in Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay and others v. State of U.P. The Allahabad High Court in that case was required to decide: Whether an application under Section 482, CrPC. to challenge a cognizance order of offence under the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 by the Special Court is maintainable or not?
The court had concluded that such application shall not be maintainable.
The Allahabad High Court had also held that for any interlocutory order passed by the Special Court in a case under the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989, the same shall be treated as orders under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989. An appeal against such orders may only be made before the High Court.
The high court differed from the view of the Allahabad High Court in the Sanjay Kumar Case.
It said:
“So far ouster of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, CrPC. is concerned, this Court does not agree with such a proposition of law. The power conferred under Section 482, CrPC. is inherent power. Therefore, the same by no stretch of imagination can be construed that the same is to be guided and controlled by the provisions of any statute. While saying so, this Court is also aware of the proposition of law that when a statute provides for a specific remedy i.e. when an alternative remedy is provided the parties are required to exhaust the said remedy first.”